I had the pleasure of attending the Naturalization swearing-in today at the Federal District Court in lower Manhattan. My client from my law clinic, who 15 months ago was being refused entrance to the United States, today became a citizen. It was a very proud and exciting day for both of us!
Anyhow, I was befuddled by part of the Naturalization oath:
“[I swear/affirm]…that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;…”
What does this mean? It clearly does not refer to a draft, because a previous clause refers to taking up arms or noncombat military service, when required by law.
Sounds like a way to get service out of people from countries we are at war with.
If we start a war with Panama, former Panamanians would be allowed to join the regular military, join the conscientious objector squad carrying stretchers to the Red Cross wagon, or stay home doing civilian work like reinforcing levees.
Actually it does refer to the draft clause. You swear to bear arms when required by law. If you are deemed to be a conscientious objector you will not be required by law to bear arms, but you may be required by law to perform some alternative service which isn’t military in nature.
Nope, actually it’s not. As the OP said, that’s covered by the previous clause. My husband was just naturalized in June, and I was wondering about the same thing at the time. I have no idea what it refers to.
I’m going to assume that you mean he was being refused readmittance, and that his absence was not lengthy enough to interfere with his residence requirements.
Actually, I think it does refer to the draft clause, because the USCIS brochure “A Guide to Naturalization” says,
"If you provide enough evidence that your religious training and beliefs prevent you from bearing arms for the United States, you may take the Oath, without the words ‘to bear arms on behalf of the Unites States when required by law…’
If you provide enough evidence to convince USCIS that your religious training and beliefs prevent you from performing any type of service in the U.S. Armed Forces, you will not be required to say the words ‘to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by law.’"
Physically, she was furloughed into the US. Legally, she was standing at the border for 2 years waiting for her hearing (after being refused admission following a brief trip to Europe). To put it into context, she had lived legally in the US for about 40 years. The entire time she was being removed, she was also eligible to naturalize.